Have they lost? Unfortunately no, they’re going to throw death and suffering at this conflict they started until they get what they want or they (somehow) run out of bodies to throw.
As opposed to letting an authoritarian state gain more power and influence? Methinks people in other parts of the world must have thought it is a sunk cost fallacy as well to support Britain when they were left standing alone when France fell to the Nazis. But I have to admit as to why some would be reluctant to provide more support for Ukraine considering much of the world is experiencing cost of living crisis. Although many countries, including the US, at the start of World War II were just reeling from the Great Depression either and yet still provided support for Britain.
Ukraine today and Britain then received billions of dollars of support, which is a lot for the common folks, but the truth is that they’re chump change relative to entire budget of the US government back then and now. Though again, I recognise that these are chump change in billions of dollars could make a massive difference to the lives of people on the domestic front. However, I would like to remind others that a lot more billions of dollars will be lost if Russia is allowed to win and if the Nazis back then had won. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a direct violation of UN Charter to respect national sovereignty and borders. What we have built in the past 70 years or so to maintain peace will be for nothing and we’d be back to the more Wild West-style international relations that led to the Second World War. Letting Russia could collapse the UN and lead to World War III.
Kind of, yeah. A moral cause in one country can be an evil wrongdoing in other. Case in point - Al-Qaeda was formed because US troops were deployed in some country in the middle east to defend someone.
And it’s not even meddling, they are asking for help.
I’m okay with helping Ukraine. I’m not okay if it’s helping only to fuck with Russia.
A moral cause in one country can be an evil wrongdoing in other. Case in point - Al-Qaeda was formed because US troops were deployed in some country in the middle east to defend someone.
Uhm, where did you get that from?
Anyway, I get your point, but your example only shows that morality doesn’t really stop at borders for most people.
I’m okay with helping Ukraine. I’m not okay if it’s helping only to fuck with Russia.
If it’s to stop an authoritarian state from taking over a democratic state it’s good for me. If it’s because of other less ulterior motives (and let’s not kid ourselves, it’s at least partly because of that), I don’t mind. Is it bad when a doctor only saves lives because it pays well?
Is Russia lost yet?
Are they lost? Yes
Have they lost? Unfortunately no, they’re going to throw death and suffering at this conflict they started until they get what they want or they (somehow) run out of bodies to throw.
They have strengthened their ability to pull from prisons too which opens up hundreds of thousands of more bodies for the front lines.
The west needs to double down and double down again in support of Ukraine.
Sunk cost fallacy.
As opposed to letting an authoritarian state gain more power and influence? Methinks people in other parts of the world must have thought it is a sunk cost fallacy as well to support Britain when they were left standing alone when France fell to the Nazis. But I have to admit as to why some would be reluctant to provide more support for Ukraine considering much of the world is experiencing cost of living crisis. Although many countries, including the US, at the start of World War II were just reeling from the Great Depression either and yet still provided support for Britain.
Ukraine today and Britain then received billions of dollars of support, which is a lot for the common folks, but the truth is that they’re chump change relative to entire budget of the US government back then and now. Though again, I recognise that these are chump change in billions of dollars could make a massive difference to the lives of people on the domestic front. However, I would like to remind others that a lot more billions of dollars will be lost if Russia is allowed to win and if the Nazis back then had won. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a direct violation of UN Charter to respect national sovereignty and borders. What we have built in the past 70 years or so to maintain peace will be for nothing and we’d be back to the more Wild West-style international relations that led to the Second World War. Letting Russia could collapse the UN and lead to World War III.
That’s one weird argument. Are you implying that meddling with other state’s affairs is justified if it’s to keep it from gaining power and influence?
That’s one weird argument. Are you implying morality stops at borders?
And it’s not even meddling, they are asking for help.
Kind of, yeah. A moral cause in one country can be an evil wrongdoing in other. Case in point - Al-Qaeda was formed because US troops were deployed in some country in the middle east to defend someone.
I’m okay with helping Ukraine. I’m not okay if it’s helping only to fuck with Russia.
Uhm, where did you get that from?
Anyway, I get your point, but your example only shows that morality doesn’t really stop at borders for most people.
If it’s to stop an authoritarian state from taking over a democratic state it’s good for me. If it’s because of other less ulterior motives (and let’s not kid ourselves, it’s at least partly because of that), I don’t mind. Is it bad when a doctor only saves lives because it pays well?